From: PLAGALOne@aol.com
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 11:02:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: PLAGAL Submission: Intellectual Journey About Abortion
Media Release From:
THE PRO-LIFE ALLIANCE
OF GAYS AND LESBIANS
Post Office Box 33292
Washington, DC 20033
Tel: (202) 223-6697
Fax: (202) 265-9737
Internet: Plagal One@aol.com
For Further Information:
Tom Sena
202-223-6697
AN INTELLECTUAL JOURNEY
ABOUT ABORTION
I think it was Gilbert and Sullivan who wrote in the lyrics of one of their
Victorian musicals, that every one of us is born a little liberal or a little
conservative. The implication -- if not the explicit assertion -- is that
one's political and philosophical beliefs are as unchangeable as one's skin
color: determined if not at birth, then not very much thereafter, and held
uncritically from that time on. Some political commentators of a more recent
vintage than G&S -- though without the constraints of light opera to excuse
their error -- seem to agree, suggesting that on the really big issues,
people's minds do not change, and the only purpose of argument and discussion
-- particularly on deeply controversial subjects -- is to harass and belittle
one's opponents.
But that is not the case -- at least with me. My beliefs about abortion
changed . . . radically.
In the fall of 1988, NOW threw a rally on the national mall here in
Washington, D.C., trumpeting abortion and its many benefits. Much of the
media picked up their tone, lionizing NOW in glowing and congratulatory
terms. One newspaper that joined in the general brou-ha-ha was The
Washington Blade, then the capital city's only weekly lesbian and gay
publication. Its front-page cheer for NOW caught my eye and gave me the
impetus finally to rebel against the myth that if you're homosexual, then of
course you are for abortion.
I had moved to the District of Columbia only three years earlier from South
Carolina. I had never lived in any city that might qualify as "big" or
become part of an actual gay community (Charleston has one, but at that time
it was very closeted, and difficult to be invited to join), and so these
years were filled with adapting to a new life, not only in a "big city" but
in a community of people like me. It was astonishing; it was heaven; and I
desperately wanted to fit in. Almost unconsciously, I absorbed the manners
and mores of the people around me, including what seemed to be their
unanimous consensus on this or that burning political topic (and when, in
Washington, are burning topics not political, or political topics not
burning?) Inevitably, abortion was among them. Any Blade article mentioning
abortion included a blatant sneer at pro-lifers and explicit hurrays for the
champions of "choice". Bar conversations, when the subject came up, did
exactly the same. And so, in time, did I. After all, this is what we all
thought, right? Could we all be wrong? So I learned to sneer and hurray on
cue with the best of them. Let the arbiters of gay opinion ring that bell,
and I was ready to drool on demand.
The problem was, though, that I was not really sure that we were right. My
uncertainties persisted no matter how many arguments I marshalled in my mind,
to allay my doubts and coax me into full agreement with gay dogma. This was
not hard to do. I was able to find excellent reasons for favoring abortion
rights with very little trouble. Relying on them would give me an effortless
coast right into abortion activism, with the bonus of feeling that my place
in the lesbian and gay community, my community, was approved and secure. And
most of all, I could stop wondering about whether or not we were right. I
would never have to think about it again -- at least I would not have to
think for myself! I would simply be part of the group mindmeld, and there
would be simple answers at last.
Yet all these enticements, and all my reasons for settling in the pro-choice
camp, faded like a dream when, in all intellectual honesty, I forced myself
to look at the central problem which never goes away: the life and humanity
of the unborn child. In being truthful with myself, I had to acknowledge
that her life is a fact. It does not rely on any philosophical preference,
and one never needs to drag the Bible or religion in by the hind legs to try
to prop it up. I researched the biological facts of her body: that her heart
has begun beating by the time she is three weeks old, she emits brain waves
after little over a month, by ten weeks she is sucking her thumb, and so on.
She is alive! There is never a time after her conception when she is not.
This is indisputable to the inquiring mind.
But surely her body, such as it is, isn't really her own? Can there be any
doubt that, develop though she may, she is fundamentally part of her mother's
body and so without a life and rights of her own, at least till she's born
and living on her own? I asked such questions hopefully; but again, I had to
be honest. The "product of conception", as abortion advocates
euphemistically describe her, has from her very beginning a new and unique
combination of genetic codes, fundamentally different from either of her
parents. These codes determine her gender, her features, the colors of her
skin, hair, eyes, so many of her essential characteristics, possibly even
including her sexual orientation. In short, she's a separate human being,
different from her mother. What other "part of the woman's body" has its own
genetic code? None. She is her own person with her own body, and her body
has its own rights. Realizing this clinched it for me. I threw up my hands
and said, "I give up. I am pro-life."
Almost immediately, I remembered our community's monolithic image on the
issue, and it seemed as though I were in the closet all over again. In both
gay and straight media we all came across as speaking all with a single
voice, not a note of dissent to be found. I had never seen or heard a real
live homosexual dissenting from that voice either in private or, at greater
risk, in public. It was as if all of us were born to be "pro-choice."
But there is another explanation. As separated, isolated individuals,
people are reluctant to differ from the rest of the pack. Putting oneself on
a seemingly different line than everyone else's can be frightening and even
dangerous, as I now knew from experience. Since the Blade was both the
primary way of communicating within the Washington, DC, lesbian and gay
community and a major reinforcer of bias toward abortion, I had begun writing
letters to the editor and even an occasional article about being gay and
pro-life. These were published, and provoked no small reaction. More than
once I would pick up the newest Blade to find myself torn to shreds in
print. I would be told of overheard conversations in which I was damned as a
traitor, a woman hater, and so on. But even if I persuaded no one, at least
a different view was getting out there and being talked about.
This by itself was a victory. Lesbians and gays have ourselves struggled
too long with the demand for conformity in sexual matters to turn around and
wield that same oppression as a weapon within our own community, against
those who threaten community solidarity by daring to disagree out loud with
our leaders. Lesbians and gays do not have the luxury of an unthinking
conformity among ourselves. Thinking for yourself is vital both for our
communal and personal good, even when -- maybe especially when -- the
authority you challenge is that of your own community. Thinking for
yourself, especially about an issue like abortion, is the only viable course
lesbians and gays can take as honest and thoughtful people .
If you can bring yourself to do it, think about that.
For just one honest minute.
----------------
In 1990, Tom Sena founded the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians
(PLAGAL), now an organization of almost 800 members on three continents with
active groups in Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, Cleveland, Los Angeles,
and Seattle. Tom currently serves as one of its Vice-Presidents.